Many around here seem to believe that being a conference champ is some kind of decisive advantage. But, that's not how the CFP protocol states it. Here is what the protocol actually says:

"When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:

Championships won
Strength of schedule
Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)."

So, "Championships won" is just one of four tie-breakers, it isn't the be-all end-all. And if you think that the ordering above matters, then consider this later statement:

"Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie-breakers between teams that look similar;

Here, "Championships won" is mentioned last, not first.

FWIW, Jeff Long actually said as much last night. When being interviewed by Rece Davis right after the rankings came out, he said that a "pool" of tiebreakers were used to assess comparable teams, not that "Championships" is THE deal-maker. So if you are going to talk about Championships, make sure to mention the other TBs as well. They are all equally important.

The hidden criteria: Market value/brand strength.

CFP is a repackaged BCS with a shiny new coat of paint.

(12-02-2015 10:37 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  The hidden criteria: Market value/brand strength.

I agree that does play a role, even though nobody will ever admit it.

I didn't pay attention to the week-by-week rankings this year, but last year it was pretty clear the criteria was "whatever the committee members damn well feel like." And then the last week, come up with the same answer that the mock BCS aggregator site did.

Has the committee been more consistent this year, week-to-week? Or did they solve that problem by not giving weekly explanations that had to be memory-holed the next week?

(12-02-2015 12:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I didn't pay attention to the week-by-week rankings this year, but last year it was pretty clear the criteria was "whatever the committee members damn well feel like." And then the last week, come up with the same answer that the mock BCS aggregator site did.

Has the committee been more consistent this year, week-to-week? Or did they solve that problem by not giving weekly explanations that had to be memory-holed the next week?

They've been inconsistent. They applied criteria to Iowa, TCU and UNC that they didn't apply to Ohio St.

So basically the same as last year.

The one consistency is that they do value quality wins. Its just that an Iowa, TCU or UNC needs 3 while an Ohio St. can get by with 1.

Or in Alabama's case 0 top 20 wins...

(12-02-2015 12:07 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 12:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I didn't pay attention to the week-by-week rankings this year, but last year it was pretty clear the criteria was "whatever the committee members damn well feel like." And then the last week, come up with the same answer that the mock BCS aggregator site did.

Has the committee been more consistent this year, week-to-week? Or did they solve that problem by not giving weekly explanations that had to be memory-holed the next week?

They've been inconsistent. They applied criteria to Iowa, TCU and UNC that they didn't apply to Ohio St.

So basically the same as last year.

The one consistency is that they do value quality wins. Its just that an Iowa, TCU or UNC needs 3 while an Ohio St. can get by with 1.

(12-02-2015 10:37 AM)HarmonOliphantOberlanderDevine Wrote:  The hidden criteria: Market value/brand strength.

There you go.

For the "fans" in here, remember this CFP thing is still a business centered around bowl games.

What's the biggest factor with bowl game decisions? "Market value/brand strength"

As for TV, given the fact ESPN (or one of their affiliates) has spent mad coin in advertising to make sure we remember to keep our asses home on New Year's Eve, you can bet if the Committee can get Alabama vs. Ohio State, it will.

Remember that if North Carolina beats Clemson and Stanford loses.

The Committee has already told us what to expect next week by the mere fact Ohio State is #6.

We are to expect one of these two brackets:

Clemson vs B1G Champion
Oklahoma vs Alabama

or

Alabama vs Ohio State
Oklahoma vs B1G Champion

Those are the only two bracket combos in play as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, that also means I am cynical enough to believe the Committee would use Stanford's two(2) losses against it if they are compared against Ohio State -- even more so if Michigan State wins the B1G Ten title.

"See, Ohio State has a good loss, and somehow, Stanford wasn't able to beat Northwestern."

Good post, but I think the preamble is relevant too:

"Establish a committee that will be instructed to place an emphasis on winning conference championships, strength of schedule and head-to-head competition when comparing teams with similar records and pedigree (treat final determination like a tie-breaker; apply specific guidelines).

"The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country."

The non-champion or independent needs to be "unequivocally" incomparable to the top conference champions.

(12-02-2015 10:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  Many around here seem to believe that being a conference champ is some kind of decisive advantage. But, that's not how the CFP protocol states it. Here is what the protocol actually says:

"When circumstances at the margins indicate that teams are comparable, then the following criteria must be considered:

Championships won
Strength of schedule
Head-to-head competition (if it occurred)
Comparative outcomes of common opponents (without incenting margin of victory)."

So, "Championships won" is just one of four tie-breakers, it isn't the be-all end-all. And if you think that the ordering above matters, then consider this later statement:

"Strength of schedule, head-to-head competition and championships won must be specifically applied as tie-breakers between teams that look similar;

Here, "Championships won" is mentioned last, not first.

FWIW, Jeff Long actually said as much last night. When being interviewed by Rece Davis right after the rankings came out, he said that a "pool" of tiebreakers were used to assess comparable teams, not that "Championships" is THE deal-maker. So if you are going to talk about Championships, make sure to mention the other TBs as well. They are all equally important.

You left out this part, which is written DIRECTLY above that:

College Football Playoff Selection Process Wrote:The criteria to be provided to the selection committee must be aligned with the ideals of the commissioners, presidents, athletic directors and coaches to honor regular season success while at the same time providing enough flexibility and discretion to select a non-champion or independent under circumstances where that particular non-champion or independent is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country.

By their own rules, champions are the main criteria unless a non-champion is "is unequivocally one of the four best teams in the country."

(12-02-2015 12:01 PM)johnbragg Wrote:  I didn't pay attention to the week-by-week rankings this year, but last year it was pretty clear the criteria was "whatever the committee members damn well feel like." And then the last week, come up with the same answer that the mock BCS aggregator site did.

So much truth here.

acc fanboys are so incredible. Do they not hear Jeff Long talking all the time? He was asked about non champions and what unequivocally meant. He said better. So sorry- but if the committee feels that Ohio St is better than UNC, UNC being a conference champion is pretty much meaningless. Pretty much, what the committee is saying- conference champion=tiebreaker(along with SOS, Head to Head, common opponents).

(12-03-2015 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  acc fanboys are so incredible. Do they not hear Jeff Long talking all the time? He was asked about non champions and what unequivocally meant. He said better. So sorry- but if the committee feels that Ohio St is better than UNC, UNC being a conference champion is pretty much meaningless. Pretty much, what the committee is saying- conference champion=tiebreaker(along with SOS, Head to Head, common opponents).

This isn't about ACC fanboys. This is about the actual rules. Now I have stated many times, what the rules state and what the committee does can be two different things. If Jeff ever said the same thing two weeks in a row, I might actually pay attention to his words. Until he does, what he says (as compared the rules they are supposed to follow) is irrelevant.

And you are more or less eliminated from this conversation, since you like the committee, change your criteria to fit your agenda, basically how you did a 180 from what you said mattered last year, to this year, to fit your SEC fanboy criteria. Yeah, you are an SEC fanboy.

(12-03-2015 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  acc fanboys are so incredible. Do they not hear Jeff Long talking all the time? He was asked about non champions and what unequivocally meant. He said better. So sorry- but if the committee feels that Ohio St is better than UNC, UNC being a conference champion is pretty much meaningless. Pretty much, what the committee is saying- conference champion=tiebreaker(along with SOS, Head to Head, common opponents).

unequivocally
[uhn-i-kwiv-uh-klee]
adverb
1.
in a way that is clear and unambiguous:
The theme is unequivocally religious.
2.
in a way that is not subject to conditions or exceptions:
He offered his forgiveness unequivocally.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unequivocally

Just because someone doesn't share your OPINION doesn't make them a "fan boy". Like it or not, IF NC beats #1 Clemson they will be considered for the CFP. When someone is considered there is a chance. The loser of the B1G CCG will likely be considered as well, depending on what happens.

(12-03-2015 02:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  acc fanboys are so incredible. Do they not hear Jeff Long talking all the time? He was asked about non champions and what unequivocally meant. He said better. So sorry- but if the committee feels that Ohio St is better than UNC, UNC being a conference champion is pretty much meaningless. Pretty much, what the committee is saying- conference champion=tiebreaker(along with SOS, Head to Head, common opponents).

This isn't about ACC fanboys. This is about the actual rules. Now I have stated many times, what the rules state and what the committee does can be two different things. If Jeff ever said the same thing two weeks in a row, I might actually pay attention to his words. Until he does, what he says (as compared the rules they are supposed to follow) is irrelevant.

And you are more or less eliminated from this conversation, since you like the committee, change your criteria to fit your agenda, basically how you did a 180 from what you said mattered last year, to this year, to fit your SEC fanboy criteria. Yeah, you are an SEC fanboy.

I agree that Long is all over the map in terms of what he says, but in part, that's because the protocol wording is contradictory. The preamble, via the "unequivocally" word, makes it seem as if "championships won" is the first, most important tiebreaker. But the specific criteria outlined later make it seem like it is just one among several TBs the committee is to consider simultaneously.

So it's not all Long's fault.

(12-03-2015 02:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  acc fanboys are so incredible. Do they not hear Jeff Long talking all the time? He was asked about non champions and what unequivocally meant. He said better. So sorry- but if the committee feels that Ohio St is better than UNC, UNC being a conference champion is pretty much meaningless. Pretty much, what the committee is saying- conference champion=tiebreaker(along with SOS, Head to Head, common opponents).

This isn't about ACC fanboys. This is about the actual rules. Now I have stated many times, what the rules state and what the committee does can be two different things. If Jeff ever said the same thing two weeks in a row, I might actually pay attention to his words. Until he does, what he says (as compared the rules they are supposed to follow) is irrelevant.

And you are more or less eliminated from this conversation, since you like the committee, change your criteria to fit your agenda, basically how you did a 180 from what you said mattered last year, to this year, to fit your SEC fanboy criteria. Yeah, you are an SEC fanboy.

I agree that Long is all over the map in terms of what he says, but in part, that's because the protocol wording is contradictory. The preamble, via the "unequivocally" word, makes it seem as if "championships won" is the first, most important tiebreaker. But the specific criteria outlined later make it seem like it is just one among several TBs the committee is to consider simultaneously.

So it's not all Long's fault.

Do you really believe that the schools AD, president, coaches & the P5 commissioners would vote to have their CCG be basically meaningless?

(12-03-2015 02:20 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  acc fanboys are so incredible. Do they not hear Jeff Long talking all the time? He was asked about non champions and what unequivocally meant. He said better. So sorry- but if the committee feels that Ohio St is better than UNC, UNC being a conference champion is pretty much meaningless. Pretty much, what the committee is saying- conference champion=tiebreaker(along with SOS, Head to Head, common opponents).

unequivocally
[uhn-i-kwiv-uh-klee]
adverb
1.
in a way that is clear and unambiguous:
The theme is unequivocally religious.
2.
in a way that is not subject to conditions or exceptions:
He offered his forgiveness unequivocally.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unequivocally

Just because someone doesn't share your OPINION doesn't make them a "fan boy". Like it or not, IF NC beats #1 Clemson they will be considered for the CFP. When someone is considered there is a chance. The loser of the B1G CCG will likely be considered as well, depending on what happens.

The thing is, I think a lot of folks DO think Ohio St is unequivocally better than UNC, and will think that even if UNC wins on Saturday.

(12-03-2015 02:26 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  acc fanboys are so incredible. Do they not hear Jeff Long talking all the time? He was asked about non champions and what unequivocally meant. He said better. So sorry- but if the committee feels that Ohio St is better than UNC, UNC being a conference champion is pretty much meaningless. Pretty much, what the committee is saying- conference champion=tiebreaker(along with SOS, Head to Head, common opponents).

This isn't about ACC fanboys. This is about the actual rules. Now I have stated many times, what the rules state and what the committee does can be two different things. If Jeff ever said the same thing two weeks in a row, I might actually pay attention to his words. Until he does, what he says (as compared the rules they are supposed to follow) is irrelevant.

And you are more or less eliminated from this conversation, since you like the committee, change your criteria to fit your agenda, basically how you did a 180 from what you said mattered last year, to this year, to fit your SEC fanboy criteria. Yeah, you are an SEC fanboy.

I agree that Long is all over the map in terms of what he says, but in part, that's because the protocol wording is contradictory. The preamble, via the "unequivocally" word, makes it seem as if "championships won" is the first, most important tiebreaker. But the specific criteria outlined later make it seem like it is just one among several TBs the committee is to consider simultaneously.

So it's not all Long's fault.

Do you really believe that the schools AD, president, coaches & the P5 commissioners would vote to have their CCG be basically meaningless?

Then why didn't they just make it champions only then? That's the rub. Lets take Alabama. Ole Miss doesnt' have the loss to Arkansas and goes to SEC title game. Do you really think Alabama wouldn't be in the playoffs right now at 11-1 and playing as well as they are? No chance in hell they'd be out.

(12-03-2015 02:26 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:21 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:13 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  acc fanboys are so incredible. Do they not hear Jeff Long talking all the time? He was asked about non champions and what unequivocally meant. He said better. So sorry- but if the committee feels that Ohio St is better than UNC, UNC being a conference champion is pretty much meaningless. Pretty much, what the committee is saying- conference champion=tiebreaker(along with SOS, Head to Head, common opponents).

This isn't about ACC fanboys. This is about the actual rules. Now I have stated many times, what the rules state and what the committee does can be two different things. If Jeff ever said the same thing two weeks in a row, I might actually pay attention to his words. Until he does, what he says (as compared the rules they are supposed to follow) is irrelevant.

And you are more or less eliminated from this conversation, since you like the committee, change your criteria to fit your agenda, basically how you did a 180 from what you said mattered last year, to this year, to fit your SEC fanboy criteria. Yeah, you are an SEC fanboy.

I agree that Long is all over the map in terms of what he says, but in part, that's because the protocol wording is contradictory. The preamble, via the "unequivocally" word, makes it seem as if "championships won" is the first, most important tiebreaker. But the specific criteria outlined later make it seem like it is just one among several TBs the committee is to consider simultaneously.

So it's not all Long's fault.

Do you really believe that the schools AD, president, coaches & the P5 commissioners would vote to have their CCG be basically meaningless?

Making a conference championship one of four major tiebreakers does not render it meaningless at all - it says that it is one important factor to consider.

If I were on the committee, I would resolve the contradiction by ignoring the "unequivocally" word. That's because logically and conceptually, being a conference champion *shouldn't* matter at all when comparing teams that aren't in the same conference. The fact that, e.g., Oklahoma beat out 9 other Big 12 teams to be the Big 12 champ doesn't tell us anything, literally anything, about whether they are better than any ACC, PAC, B1G, or SEC team, because in winning the Big 12 title, Oklahoma didn't beat those teams out at all.

And even comparing teams *within* the same conference, it should only matter to a point.

(12-03-2015 02:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:20 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  acc fanboys are so incredible. Do they not hear Jeff Long talking all the time? He was asked about non champions and what unequivocally meant. He said better. So sorry- but if the committee feels that Ohio St is better than UNC, UNC being a conference champion is pretty much meaningless. Pretty much, what the committee is saying- conference champion=tiebreaker(along with SOS, Head to Head, common opponents).

unequivocally
[uhn-i-kwiv-uh-klee]
adverb
1.
in a way that is clear and unambiguous:
The theme is unequivocally religious.
2.
in a way that is not subject to conditions or exceptions:
He offered his forgiveness unequivocally.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unequivocally

Just because someone doesn't share your OPINION doesn't make them a "fan boy". Like it or not, IF NC beats #1 Clemson they will be considered for the CFP. When someone is considered there is a chance. The loser of the B1G CCG will likely be considered as well, depending on what happens.

The thing is, I think a lot of folks DO think Ohio St is unequivocally better than UNC, and will think that even if UNC wins on Saturday.

I'm not sold on Ohio State, they have struggled all year. You can say that they are where they are because they are the defending national champions & not for their performance this year. Their SOS is down around Iowa & NC & they have fewer FPI top 40 wins than NC. I would say that Ohio St should beat NC in a H2H but I can't say they are "unequivocally" better than anyone in the top 10.

(12-03-2015 03:40 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:33 PM)stever20 Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:20 PM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 02:06 PM)stever20 Wrote:  acc fanboys are so incredible. Do they not hear Jeff Long talking all the time? He was asked about non champions and what unequivocally meant. He said better. So sorry- but if the committee feels that Ohio St is better than UNC, UNC being a conference champion is pretty much meaningless. Pretty much, what the committee is saying- conference champion=tiebreaker(along with SOS, Head to Head, common opponents).

unequivocally
[uhn-i-kwiv-uh-klee]
adverb
1.
in a way that is clear and unambiguous:
The theme is unequivocally religious.
2.
in a way that is not subject to conditions or exceptions:
He offered his forgiveness unequivocally.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unequivocally

Just because someone doesn't share your OPINION doesn't make them a "fan boy". Like it or not, IF NC beats #1 Clemson they will be considered for the CFP. When someone is considered there is a chance. The loser of the B1G CCG will likely be considered as well, depending on what happens.

The thing is, I think a lot of folks DO think Ohio St is unequivocally better than UNC, and will think that even if UNC wins on Saturday.

I'm not sold on Ohio State, they have struggled all year. You can say that they are where they are because they are the defending national champions & not for their performance this year. Their SOS is down around Iowa & NC & they have fewer FPI top 40 wins than NC. I would say that Ohio St should beat NC in a H2H but I can't say they are "unequivocally" better than anyone in the top 10.

The thing is, how they finished did give folks that thought. Especially coaches.